Editor must concede: Design not always science

Mark Quick

Published 7:00 pm, Monday, August 4, 2003

The intervening time since my July 23 perspective, "Intelligent Design model deserves equal class time," has been interesting, to say the least. More than 20 letters have been e-mailed, most with a common theme: Based on the assumption that proponents of the Intelligent Design (ID) model cannot produce an experiment or testable model to demonstrate their position, it is not science, and thereby does not belong in a science classroom. Based upon this reasoning (only here and only for the sake of argument) I must regretfully concede. However, I have one request, let my detractors apply the same standard to themselves.

The dictionary defines Evolution as "The theory that groups of organisms, as species, may change with passage of time so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors." The dictionary then defines a theory as "a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. Abstract reasoning; speculation."

Again, in fairness, if we are to exclude teacher initiated discussion of the Intelligent Design model based upon the assumption that no testable model or experiment exists to verify it, should we not also apply that same standard to the THEORY of Evolution?

What do Evolutionists ask us to accept? First, that there was a big bang. Can Evolutionists provide an experiment or testable model whereby they can demonstrate the occurrence of an explosion emanating without a known cause? In addition, following this bang, Evolutionists describe a scenario whereby complex systems of life came into existence via a process of gradual mutation and Natural Selection. Can Evolutionists provide us with an experiment or testable model or recorded occurrence in history whereby order and complexity emanate from an explosion? We could, on the other hand, scientifically prove that explosions create chaos. (Granted, Einstein's equations on General Relativity have demonstrated the universe is exploding outward. This is a unique explosion then because it has produced order. They say order without a designer). Regarding the mutations and Natural Selection, we must travel backward in time billions of years to the "primordial soup." That is, to a time when random chemicals came together to form proteins, amino acids, then DNA, and so forth. Can Evolutionists provide a testable model or experiment whereby we can observe chemicals, without the scientist's undue influence, coming together to form proteins, amino acids, and so forth? Can Evolutionists provide us a testable model or experiment to demonstrate the origin and apparent complex configuration of the Sun? Can scientists provide us with a testable model or experiment whereby we can observe the mutations and natural selection they claim helped us to arrive at the complex living organisms we have today? In fairness, they say this process took billions of years. But then, if it requires billions of years, how can we observe it or provide a testable model or experiment? They deduce the mutations and Natural Selection mostly from fossil records. If we cannot provide the necessary experimental proofs or testable models then how can we call most of this science?

We can, on the other hand, observe design. We can look through a magnifying glass and see the complex structure of DNA. We can observe and deduce the complex natural laws which govern the cosmos.

Since there are so many elements of the theory of Evolution which cannot be scientifically demonstrated (and please, do not let my feeble limitations preclude further problems with the theory, visit the Web and do a Google search: Intelligent Design) what are we being asked to do? We are being asked to accept many assumptions, much abstract reasoning, and speculations which cannot be scientifically demonstrated. Based on what are we asked to accept them? It would appear based on faith. Faith in whom? Faith in the scientists. That is, faith that the Evolutionists' suppositions and reasoning, based on his interpretation of the available data or lack thereof, are reliable. According to my detractors, faith forms the basis for religion and faith and religion do not belong in a science classroom because there exists no experiment or testable model to prove the suppositions they underpin. Would it not be reasonable then to demand that every element of the theory of Evolution which is not scientifically verifiable be banned from the science classroom? That is, to utilize the same standard being applied to exclude Intelligent Design? It seems that Evolution, in many respects, is not science. It is an assumption purporting to explain the origin of life. How then is it much different than Intelligent Design?

My detractors say that Evolution is currently the most widely held supposition by scientists on our origin, thus, since most scientists hold to it and a smaller portion hold to Intelligent Design then Evolution should be taught and Design not mentioned. I only mentioned two sources of support for Intelligent Design in my last perspective. This should in no way indicate a limited amount of support for this model. Also, no one is arguing that Evolution should not be taught, it is the prevailing view. What is being argued is that Intelligent Design should be treated fairly.

In addition, my detractors object to the theological implications of Intelligent Design. Well, many object to the theological implications of Evolution. Although we are able to observe design at every turn, Evolutionists seek to provide a model for our origin which precludes the need for a designer. This has deep religious and moral consequence for our society and culture.

In addition, I must concede the smallness of my faith, in comparison to that of the Evolutionist. He can accept many suppositions for which there are no testable models or experiments, just as I. Yet I am only able to muster the faith to believe in a designer based upon what I can observe.

In closing, when our local school boards are asked not to allow the teaching of ID based upon these arguments, I simply ask that they apply the same standard to Evolution. I also ask that they determine if a significant number of scientists support Intelligent Design. Let the students decide who the designer is, that is outside the scope of the teacher's responsibility. Do not, however, deny students the opportunity to have both sides of the origins argument presented to them.